- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 635
- Format
- Medium Format
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201071394723115.pdfI understand Ilford cuts both Delta 3200 135 and 120 formats from the same master roll with 0,125mm/5mil support.
I've torn regular film with some of my older stills cameras but I've not yet done it with ECN-2. However I've found the emulsion is prone to flaking off during development. Not very hardy.
Are you sure those "flakes" are not the rem jet backing?
PE
... But when one begins sailing in uncharted waters, one has to expect new and unforeseen difficulties. ..
So what are the detriments of using 4 mil support for 35mm?
That's how thick the base of 120 TMAX films was when kodak introduced them in 1987. After customer cameras jammed, Kodak reduced the base to its current 4.7 mil thickness, and the problems stopped....what are the detriments of using 5 mil support for 120?...
Yeah, first off the Remjet doesn't flake off as much as slimes off all over the place. Also, this is on the emulsion side. Remjet leaves a white smear and this leaves a pink or clear patch. Most of the time it comes off the edges so it's no big deal, but I do get missing patches in middles once in a moon. Bad cases leave me with a patch of one frame on a different frame or on the shiny side. A toothpick will scrape it off. Fuji and Kodak are prone to this as far as I've seen. The Fuji Remjet however comes off far far easier than the Kodak stuff. The Kodak stuff stains my hands and need a cloth or sponge to completely wipe off, it also stains my reels something awful.
I also believe that Fuji's double 8 film was on a thinner polyester base that held more per spool.
Shocked to have found it available in our Library group... not only that, it is out on loan with another waiting for it, so I'm third in line.. Hmmm perhaps another sign of analog is returning ..."The Revenge of Analog", author David Sax*
In the book, "The Revenge of Analog",
That's how thick the base of 120 TMAX films was when kodak introduced them in 1987. After customer cameras jammed, Kodak reduced the base to its current 4.7 mil thickness, and the problems stopped.
I seem to recall it was mostly Mamiya reverse-curl holders that jammed, but am not 100% certain. Others with similar film paths might have also experienced the problem.
Sorry, yes thats what I meant. You could hold more footage on your reels with single 8 film, but Fuji still only kept 50 feet on their cassette to keep size down. Im interested to know how well it projected as I know what happens with various film bases in some projectors.Fuji Single 8 was on a poly base, but with the same format as Super 8. this let them use smaller cassettes with 50 ft loads. the cassettes only will hold 30 some feet of the conventional 5 mil film. I don't believe that fuji ever offered a super 8 film, at least under their own brand....
Ilford Once tried to sell "HP5 Motor Drive Film" using a thin poly base to cram 72 exposures into a standard 35mm cassette. Freestyle had great bargains on it when it went out of date! the Ilford folks had even had a special 72 exposure Stainless tank made, as well as a cute Plastic 72 exposure reel to fit a regular Stainless tank. I probably still have a roll of it at the bottom of my film freezer. The Poly base made for negatives with a lot of tendency to curl.
Maybe because people don't want to lock themselves in to any particular film per camera for an extended time?I dont know why this idea never took off, because you would think having as many shots per roll would be a good thing.
The polyester base was really tough on cameras if they had even the slightest problem with film advance - acetate film rips if misfed, but polyester survives, potentially at the expense of damage to the camera.I dont know why this idea never took off, because you would think having as many shots per roll would be a good thing.
Yes, but on holidays you typically want to take alot of snaps and changing rolls can can be inconvenient.Maybe because people don't want to lock themselves in to any particular film per camera for an extended time?
Yes thats true, although minilabs can usually handle longer lengths of film.The polyester base was really tough on cameras if they had even the slightest problem with film advance - acetate film rips if misfed, but polyester survives, potentially at the expense of damage to the camera.
Polyester base can be really curly. I would guess labs hated it.
72 exposure films wouldn't fit in many developing reels.
And most people don't want a film that you can't keep appropriate track of exposures with - no cameras have counters that go to 72, and some cameras (e.g. some Retinas) will stop advancing film after a maximum of 38 or so shots.
I have seen films coated on polyester film literally destroying automatic cameras, but never with manual. I guess most everyone stops when things jam, but auto winders do not.
PE
The polyester base was really tough on cameras if they had even the slightest problem with film advance - acetate film rips if misfed, but polyester survives, potentially at the expense of damage to the camera.
Polyester base can be really curly. I would guess labs hated it.
72 exposure films wouldn't fit in many developing reels.
And most people don't want a film that you can't keep appropriate track of exposures with - no cameras have counters that go to 72, and some cameras (e.g. some Retinas) will stop advancing film after a maximum of 38 or so shots.
You should inform Kodak, as that film is very hard. It uses 3rd generation hardeners and withstands temperatures up to 120F.
PE
If Baking Soda caused any trouble, then no cine film would survive the following process steps. Baking Soda is a lot less alkaline than most film developers, and this includes all color developers I know of.You think baking soda would soften the emulsion to the point that it would flake off?
LOL! Mine too!My Oly Pen does!
But does it reach the necessary 144?My Oly Pen does!
But does it reach the necessary 144?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?